Plutarch on animal ethics

[JohnDonne]

A pig's life is valuable, but future pigs aren't alive and have no interests. Therefore, in creating them merely to deny their interests, you're actually creating suffering.

[Montegriffo]

No one is healthy with a carnivore diet.
Meat does not contain all the nutrients needed.
Eat only meat and you will die.
A vegan or vegetarian diet on the other hand is perfectly sustainable.

Tell that to Jordan Peterson and his daughter. Plants do not contain all the nutrients either, yet not every vegan dies, and not everyone on the carnivore diet dies. Different diets for different people, one size does not fit all, including veganism.

"Not every vegan dies" is rather high praise, but I'd have to go further and point to the evidence that veganism has significant health benefits.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

Does JP exist on a purely carnivorous diet or does he supplement his diet with plants in order to get the vitamins needed to survive?

Man cannot live on bread alone – not least because man would develop scurvy about a month or so into that little experiment.

The best diets have plenty of variety in them, making sure you get everything from vitamin C to iron to linoleic acid without even having to think. Even fad diets that focus on just a few foods or on eliminating certain things are usually varied enough to be reasonably nutritious. Still, in the extremely unlikely scenario that you had to live on just one food, are some nutritionally more complete than others? Could you get what you need from, say, just potatoes, or just bananas, or just avocados?

One thing is for sure, the candidates would not include meat or most fruits and vegetables. Meat doesn't have fibre, nor does it have key vitamins and nutrients. Fruits and vegetables may have vitamins, but they don't have anywhere close to enough fat or protein, even eaten in quantity. The body does not need as much as you might think to stay alive, but you omit them at your peril.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017022 ... he-longest

[StCapps]

A pig's life is valuable, but future pigs aren't alive and have no interests. Therefore, in creating them merely to deny their interests, you're actually creating suffering.

No creating them is allowing them to live a life that otherwise wouldn't exist, which is very much in their interests, regardless if they suffer as a result. Life is suffering, that doesn't mean that creating a life is immoral. It is very much in their interest to live until they are fully grown, even if they die before they otherwise would have, to feed people.

[JohnDonne]

A pig's life is valuable, but future pigs aren't alive and have no interests. Therefore, in creating them merely to deny their interests, you're actually creating suffering.

No creating them is allowing them to live a life that otherwise wouldn't exist, which is very much in their interests, regardless if they suffer as a result. Life is suffering, that doesn't mean that creating a life is immoral. It is very much in their interest to live until they are fully grown, even if they die before they otherwise would have to feed people.

Again, you can't have interests before you exist, because there's no you. Once you're alive, you have interests, but of course, you have no plans to give the pigs anything that's in their interests once you create them, you're torturing them for taste.

Let me put it to you this way, was slavery ethical because it created an incentive to make more slave babies that wouldn't otherwise exist?

No capps.

The answer is no.

[StCapps]

I will agree to stop hacking the pigs up.

If/when we are allowed to hack the vegans up instead.

And then feed them to the pigs.

[StCapps]

A pig's life is valuable, but future pigs aren't alive and have no interests. Therefore, in creating them merely to deny their interests, you're actually creating suffering.

No creating them is allowing them to live a life that otherwise wouldn't exist, which is very much in their interests, regardless if they suffer as a result. Life is suffering, that doesn't mean that creating a life is immoral. It is very much in their interest to live until they are fully grown, even if they die before they otherwise would have to feed people.

Again, you can't have interests before you exist, because there's no you. Once you're alive, you have interests, but of course, you have no plans to give the pigs anything that's in their interests once you create them, you're torturing them for taste.

Let me put it to you this way, was slavery ethical because it created an incentive to make more slave babies that wouldn't otherwise exist?

No capps.

The answer is no.

Creating a false equivalency between the value of pig and human life, isn't helping your argument.

[JohnDonne]

No creating them is allowing them to live a life that otherwise wouldn't exist, which is very much in their interests, regardless if they suffer as a result. Life is suffering, that doesn't mean that creating a life is immoral. It is very much in their interest to live until they are fully grown, even if they die before they otherwise would have to feed people.

Again, you can't have interests before you exist, because there's no you. Once you're alive, you have interests, but of course, you have no plans to give the pigs anything that's in their interests once you create them, you're torturing them for taste.

Let me put it to you this way, was slavery ethical because it created an incentive to make more slave babies that wouldn't otherwise exist?

No capps.

The answer is no.

Creating a false equivalency between the value of pig and human life, isn't helping your argument.

It's not an equivalency, it's an analogy.

[Montegriffo]

A pig's life is valuable, but future pigs aren't alive and have no interests. Therefore, in creating them merely to deny their interests, you're actually creating suffering.

Farmed pigs don't even make it to adulthood.
With the land saved by not intensively farming meat there would be more habitat left for wild animals like deer and boar.

Demand for ever cheaper meat is what fucked up animal farming.
Sheep or cows living in pastures or on wild hillsides with no other practical use isn't the problem.
Tens of thousands of chickens crammed into a filthy shed being fed on corn is the problem.
Cows in sheds their whole life fed on soya is the problem.
Pigs living in their own shit fed crops that could feed humans is the problem.

Fuck the ethics, we are running out of fertile land to feed the planet with and cheap meat is the reason.

Tax the fuck out of intensive farming or implement stricter humane standards I don't care. Your 99 cent Mc Puss burger is killing my rainforests (not you JD obv's).

[StCapps]

Again, you can't have interests before you exist, because there's no you. Once you're alive, you have interests, but of course, you have no plans to give the pigs anything that's in their interests once you create them, you're torturing them for taste.

Let me put it to you this way, was slavery ethical because it created an incentive to make more slave babies that wouldn't otherwise exist?

No capps.

The answer is no.

Creating a false equivalency between the value of pig and human life, isn't helping your argument.

It's not an equivalency, it's an analogy.

And a terrible one.

[StCapps]

I'm all for fixing the problems in factory farming of animals, but that doesn't mean they should stop doing it altogether until those problems are fixed, that's just dumb.